A couple of odd things happened last week during a city council vote to accept the report on Councilwoman Kristi Fulnecky’s eligibility.

Both oddities involved Councilman Justin Burnett’s explanation that he would be abstaining from the vote because he didn’t have legal representation on the matter.

First is the question of legal representation. While it’s true Burnett was not represented by Kevin O’Keefe, the city said it would have provided him legal representation if he was sued over the vote.

As anyone who follows city business knows, the council gets sued fairly often. To an extent, it comes with the territory of passing laws.

In most cases, council members are represented by city attorneys. A third-party attorney was hired in this case because Fulnecky had hired a private attorney and it would have been a conflict for city attorneys to represent her “opponents.”

It was already an unusual circumstance to have so many different lawyers representing different people, and Burnett’s abstention highlighted that.

He later told the News-Leader he didn’t want the city to needlessly hire more attorneys. We appreciate him thinking of taxpayers, but it’s important that elected officials know they have representation in legal threats – there will be many.

Threat of a lawsuit can’t stop a councilperson’s work, and it shouldn’t be an excuse.

And that’s the second odd bit about Burnett’s choice to not vote.

It was the latest moment in a series of events in which he has chosen to stay out of the fray.

To some extent, we understand. This board has argued for the city to move on, but that shouldn’t mean a council member gives up their voice or their vote on an issue.

Council members rightly recuse themselves when there’s a conflict of interest, most commonly when a vote involves a business of one of the members.

Abstention should not be used to avoid issues because they are difficult or unpleasant.

With this criticism of Burnett’s decision, we should say that we appreciate the work he has put in since January, when he rescinded his resignation and vowed to build bridges in the community and solve problems.

He’s been doing that, and the vote on Fulnecky’s eligibility could seem like a distraction from that work, but there is a way to handle such a sticky issue responsibly.

If Burnett had conflicted thoughts about the issue, he need only to look to his more experienced colleague, Councilman Craig Hosmer, for inspiration.

Hosmer was not among the original signers of the letter, and he voiced opposition at moments during the investigation of Fulnecky. He did not, however, avoid the meetings, or the discussions, or the vote.

If Burnett was uncertain about legal representation, city leaders must make sure council members know they are always protected.

If it was an excuse to avoid a touchy subject, he should instead find a professional way to be involved.